Haryana

Karnal

CC/55/2021

Narender Panwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manjeet Kamboj

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 55 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.28.01.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:24.07.2023

 

1. Narender Panwar, aged 36 years, son of late Shri Maya Ram (Aadhar no.4494 5029 3921).

 

2. Naveen Kumar son of late Shri Maya Ram son of late Shri Parbhu Dayal, both residents of village Jundla, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. 15, UGF Indra Parkash, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through its authorized person.

 

2. M/s Ansal Housing & construction Ltd. through its Manager, G. T. Road, Karnal.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Manjeet Kamboj, counsel for the complainants.

                    Shri Dinesh Chauhan, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, president)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that father of the complainants, named Maya Ram had purchased a residential plot no.C-100, measuring 199-10 sq. yards in the Ansal under the kind control of the OPs from one Smt. Rama Gaba and the same was transferred in the name of Maya Ram on 12.01.2016. The father of the complainants had executed a registered Will bearing no.1037/1 dated 26.03.2015 prior to his death. Maya Ram died on 23.06.2016 and thereafter the complainants became the owner of the said plot as per the Will executed by Maya Ram. Thereafter, complainants contacted and informed the OP no.2 regarding the death of their father and requested to transfer of the aforesaid plot in their name but the officials of the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly the officials of the OPs flatly refused to transfer the said plot in the name of the complainants. The complainants are ready to pay the requisite fee for the same. Then complainants sent a legal notice dated 22.12.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is denied that on the basis of registered Will bearing no.1037/1 dated 26.03.2015 the complainants became the owner of the said plot. Rather, it is submitted that on the basis of above registered Will, the complainants have to seek probate under section 276 or declaration decree from the concerned Civil Court with respect of such registered Will and will have to declare themselves as owner of said property or beneficiary under that Will and then the OPs will have not any objection to transfer that plot in their name. It is matter of record complainants informed the OPs regarding the death of their father. It is further pleaded that OPs have demanded certain documents mandatorily required as per law to transfer the ownership of said plot in favour of complainants but complainants instead of giving the requisite document had filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, coy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, acknowledgement Ex.C4, reply of legal notice Ex.C5, copy of Will Ex.C6, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 14.04.2011 Ex.C8, copy of endorsement Ex.C9, copy of application for change in right to purchase letter Ex.C10, copy of transfer application Ex.C11, copy of statement of account Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 03.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dushyant Arora Ex.RW1/A, copy of reply of legal notice dated 20.03.2021 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 10.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 6.            We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

 7.            As per version of the complainants, father of the complainants had purchased a residential plot from one Smt. Rama Gaba and the same was transferred in his name on 12.01.2016. Father of the complainants had executed a registered Will on 26.03.2015 and he died on 23.06.2016. Thereafter, complainants became owner of said plot as per Will executed by their father. The complainants requested the OP No.2 for transferring the said plot in their name but the officials of the OP refused to do so.

8.              Before going to the merits of the case, firstly we decide, whether the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ or not?

 9.            As per Section 2, sub clause (7) the meaning of “consumer” is as under:-

 (7)           Consumer means any person who:-

                i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

ii)             hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are available of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

  

10.           In the present complaint, the complainants never paid any consideration to the OPs nor availed any services from them. Thus, the complainants do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’. Furthermore, by way of present complaint, complainants want to declare themselves as the owners of the plot in question. For the said purpose, they have seek probate under Section 276 or to seek decree for declaration from the Civil Court with respect to such registered Will and will have to declare themselves as owner of the property in question or beneficiary under that Will. Furthermore, the alleged registered Will has been executed on 26.03.2015 and the plot in question has been purchased by the father of the complainant on 12.01.2016. There is no remark with regard to plot in question in the alleged Will. Thus, despite the complainants, other legal heirs of the deceased Maya Ram also become the owners of the plot in question but complainants had not array them as necessary party in the present complaint. Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

11.           Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:24.07.2023.      

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member